I've a Canon 60D and I'm mainly interested in shooting landscapes. I feel very interested in buying a used canon EOS film camera (since my EF lenses are compatible).
I would like to take pictures from my DSLR and then use the same meter reading on the SLR to take a picture. I'm planning on scanning the negatives myself to the maximum resolution and the assumption is that the picture from the film camera would be lot more colorful and sharper.
Would their be a noticeable difference by using a film camera? considering that my 60D comes with 18 Mega Pixels.
Sharpness and resolution matter to me only because I usually end up cropping my pictures.
Also I'm planning on using using films with ISO of 50 or 100.
The used camera I'm interested in cost around $200.
Answer
It certainly is not worth investing in a 35mm film camera for the perceived higher resolution, additional color, or sharpness.
To get results you will likely have to either invest in, or at least have access to a drum scanner that gives you the highest resolution possible right now. Otherwise you will likely be scanning on a flatbed that almost certainly does not produce resolution even near the Canon 60D.
Are you trying to print 24x30inch prints at 360dpi? Sure, grab a 35mm camera, a $20,000 drum scanner, and you may be able to achieve high resolution that would benefit images of this size. You also might not achieve that.
It sounds like the main issue is that you usually end up cropping your images. If this is the case, it sounds like you either need to frame up the subject better before you take the image, or invest in further reaching lenses.
No comments:
Post a Comment